Morris v. Warden, Franklin Med. Ctr.

Full title: KENNETH L. MORRIS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FRANKLIN MEDICAL CENTER…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 30, 2014

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1888 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1888

10-30-2014

KENNETH L. MORRIS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FRANKLIN MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent.

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King
ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petition, ECF 2. On October 15, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim for habeas corpus relief. Order and Report and Recommendation, ECF 3. This matter is now before the Court on petitioner's objection to that recommendation. Objection, ECF 5. The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Petition alleges simply,

"No state substantive law invoked in this case in violation of the Fourt[h] and Fourteenth Amendment. No public record of any substantive law which comports with the Fourth Amendment. Thereby denying me the due process of law.

Id. at PAGEID# 8. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the Petition contains no facts in support of his claim that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.

In his objections, petitioner argues that "no substantive law was invoked in this case." Objection, PageID# 39. Petitioner also contends that he "is entitled to hear from the Respondent." Id., PageID# 40.

This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition, even liberally construed, alleges no facts whatsoever that would support a claim that petitioner was convicted in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (A petition must, among other things, "state the facts supporting each ground. . . ."). Simply put, the Petition does allege a basis for concluding that petitioner is entitled to relief, nor does it present a "'real possibility of constitutional error.'" Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)(quoting Advisory Committee Note to Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases).

Petitioner's objection to the Report and Recommendation is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation, ECF 3, is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. This action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

Moreover, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

s/Algenon L. Marbley

Algenon L. Marbley

United States District Judge